Letters to the Editor Wednesday

As a retired Savannah police officer, let me weigh in on the banning of assault weapons.

Patrolmen know that criminals can go free for lack of evidence, but might be detained or charged if “possession” of an assault weapon is illegal. A routine traffic stop could have provided a police officer the opportunity to prevent the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary.

Law enforcement is also well aware when there are cuts to the mental health care system, seeing an increase of the “desperate” and “homeless” on city streets. When these people are not receiving care and assistance, it adds to problems and crime incidents for law enforcement.

Statistics and the odds are a big part of a police officer’s career and life, and I believe having less high-powered weapons manufactured and obtainable increases the safety margin for everyone.

Giving our officers more legal tools to do their jobs can increase public safety. Even carrying an issued Glock semi-automatic pistol, no officer wants to face off with a semi-automatic rifle.

I was happy to be able to retire before the previous ban expired, and I would hope that the next legislation would address the semi-automatic weapons already out there on the street.

While we debate the issue, gun manufacturers and sellers are reaping windfall profits, making the industry lobby NRA happy, at least for the short run.

DON COLLIER

Bloomingdale

David used deadly force to slay evil Goliath

I would like to comment on the letter written by Greg Brock (Jan. 7), where he says that owning a weapon or getting training to use any people-killing weapon as being fundamentally against the teachings of Christ.

Where in the Holy Scriptures does it say that Christian men and women should be like helpless sheep being lead to slaughter?

Do you recall reading what a young shepherd boy, who later became king, named David did to an evil giant named Goliath when confronted with the reality of dying?

The God I serve and love gave that young shepherd boy the wisdom and courage to step out from amongst the crowd of much older soldiers in God’s army and fight the evil giant.

David did not allow himself to be killed, he defended himself.

The sick, demented, evil people don’t care if you choose not to arm and protect yourself. It only makes their job easier.

I personally trained and taught my children how to handle and shoot firearms from a young age. Today they can load, aim, shoot and hit their target and do it safely every time.

God will triumph over evil, and I will never give up or give in.

CHRISTOPHER J. SATHER

Savannah

The Allies, not Hitler, pushed gun control

The assertion that German National Socialists banned gun ownership and that Adolf Hitler was an advocate of gun control is untrue.

The 1938 German Weapons Act, enacted five years after Hitler’s ascension to power, essentially forbade gun ownership by Jews and others considered to be enemies of the Third Reich, a relatively small percentage of the population.

Gun ownership in non-Aryan lands designated as German protectorates or otherwise occupied by Germany by annexation or invasion was, with the exception of auxiliary forces, forbidden.

Those found in possession of guns were presumed to be partisans and summarily shot. Gun ownership in Germany and Austria proper during the Nazi era was actually facilitated by the law, which regulated only hand guns and was far less restrictive than previous laws.

Moreover, German and Austrian men were expected to become proficient in the handling of guns, so that they would be prepared to serve in Hitler’s coming conquests in Europe and Africa and the supreme battle with the United States, which was envisioned by Hitler to be fought by future generations.

Comprehensive gun control in Germany was, in fact, next instituted by the victorious Allies after the end of the war in 1945.

THOMAS J. GUSTINELLA

Savannah

America needs leader like Washington, by George

Centuries ago, the Danish Vikings swore off of raping and pillaging their neighbors, ashamed of their reputation.

They went home and focused on creating world-class pastries, finger sandwiches and smorgasbords from local farm and fishery produce.

Studies show the Danes to be the world’s healthiest and happiest people, once they realized that being barbarians didn’t pan out as well. A Copenhagen neighborhood recently passed an ordinance requiring residents to greet each other by saying “hello.” Danish high school students now call their teachers by their first names.

Apparently, their pendulum of societal norms still swings in the direction of graciousness.

While Danes call their country a democracy, it is a constitutional monarchy. They elect politicians to carry out the edicts of the royal family.

If we had a similar system, everybody we send to Washington would be carrying out the instructions of George Washington’s lineage. It works for them and there might be something to learn from it before the wheels come off here.

If the Vikings had been constantly incited by the gore and violent drivel on many of our TV channels today, they’d likely have built more boats, rather than burned them. Their boats weren’t the problem. Our guns aren’t the problem. Those who “cling to their guns and religion” certainly aren’t the problem.

The administration blamed Benghazi on a video clip. Now they’re blaming attacks by extremists and mentally unstable people on a 10-round clip.

Where’s a Washington when you need one?

EVERETT STEPHENSON

Savannah

Big win for Bethesda in its first 5K race

On behalf of the Women’s Board of Bethesda, I would like to thank all who participated in the Yates-Astro Resolution Race 5K at Bethesda Academy on Jan. 5.

In spite of the cold weather, the inaugural race attracted more than 275 participants and raised more than $28,000 to benefit the students.

The board appreciates all the runners, walkers, volunteers and all the many sponsors who make this year’s event so successful.

ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for
following agreed-upon rules of civility. Posts and
comments do not reflect the views of this site. Posts and comments are
automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some
comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules,
click the "Flag as offensive" link below the comment.

Don, unless I'm mistaken he was underage for the we apons he had, so would have been detained anyway. And why do you believe you should have more of an advantage over someone trying to shoot you than I should?
Thomas, sounds like Hitler took the weapons from those he wanted to control, and we did the same. Believe all involved used the system of disarm, control and only alow limited indiv. freedom.
People, wakeup, if you can not defend yourself, than your freedom is fully controled by those who can.

What if Adam Lanza's mom had been responsible and removed the guns from her home and denied him access? What if Lanza, instead, waited until recess and just drove his car through the Sandy Hook playground? What if he just plowed over these kids waiting at their bus stop? Would a routine traffic stop (probable cause?) have prevented this? Could not an armed officer stationed at the school have stopped the killing?

I understand the police found Jovan Belcher, the KC Chief player, drunk, asleep in his car hours before he shot his girlfriend. What if he had been arrested for DUI on the spot? Could the police have prevented the murder/suicide?

I can do this all day. In a former life, my job required me to make life or death, what-if decisions all the time. We had a saying, hope for the best but plan for the worst.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't cops carry long guns as well as sidearms? Practically every cop responding to the Sandy Hook shooting appeared to be carrying an AR, obviously planning for the worst. If the criminal threat warrants an AR response from the cops, then all law abiding, responsible gun owners should have the same right to defend themselves and their families with equal firepower.

My self defense choices follow this same principle. In fact, when I called 911 about a prowler, the responding officers did not seem to bat an eye when they arrived and saw me standing on my doorstep with my weapons.

About the only statement Mr. Collier makes that I agree with is his reference to the mental health care system. Unfortunately, most of the gun control measures do not address this problem and will have absolutely no effect in preventing these people from killing others with whatever means are available.

is that of ALL OF THE ABOVE "what ifs" we do something about the ones we can to change the odds. There are no PERFECT solutions, but that shouldn't keep us from acting on some of them in order to improve the situation. Since he doesn't "blog," I just asked him if he was ever issued a "long gun" for his car. He said NO ... so if that has changed since the ban was lifted and he retired ... well maybe we need to connect some dots.

Don,
I firmly believe that our founders put the 2nd amendment in place was not to protect hunting, but to protect ourselves from an out of hand government like the one we have today. the amendment has "Shall not be infringed". That means LEAVE IT ALONE. The definiton of infringed is
in·fringe [in-frinj] Show IPA verb, in·fringed, in·fring·ing.
verb (used with object)
1.
to commit a breach or infraction of; violate or transgress:

The right of the people not to be forced to purchase a commercial product (health insurance) was infringed upon by this administration. I expect they will chip away at all of our rights as time goes by.

I'm reminded of the movie Demolition Man where the leader of that society ruled that anything bad for you was illegal. This is life imitating art. I have to wonder where/if it will end.

The entire gun control law argument of protecting citizens falls apart when you compare it to the deaths from alcohol, tobacco and abortions. How do they pick and choose which crusade is worth trampling on the Constitution? I guess it's the same litmus test they use to decide which laws to enforce: "It will get me reelected - It will not get me reelected."

all the different kinds of guns that can do the most harm but people in America WILL NOT give up their guns. We keep hearing over and over again that the guns will only fire when a person pulls the trigger. So Obama wants to ban assault rifles. It will not affect the murder rate one iota.

Oboma is doing a wonderful job of dividing our country I caught the tail end of his conference a little while ago and he was (as always) demonizing our Republican elected officials. The words he chooses should insult all of us. Ever since his re election he is cocky, condescending and extremely arrogant. I think he really believes he can walk on water.

If what you're saying is correct, that Hitler only banned guns from the German people he thought may be a threat except that all guns from Jews were banned. Then why didn't the German people who had weapons rise up and do everything in their power to stop the atrocities of the Nazis.. Nobody came to the aid of the Jews. The German people had to have known what was going on. Where was their humanity and compassion? They must not have had any.

Of comments from someone in charge when they want to take away my choices, but keep them for themselves, as in; We know better, we are smarter and more responsible, you can trust us to take care of you, you haven't been trained properly. I am not a child but a tax paying citizen which means every person in the public sector gets a paycheck from someone like me, and unless I am mistaken, the tail never wags the dog. I would ask Mr Collier the obnvious, How would the police have known he was carrying a banned weapon if it had been in the truck out of sight, What law could the police have employed to look in his truck if he were obeying the traffic laws? Is Mr collier going to assure me without a shadow of a doubt that the police can be there to save my family quicker than I can?

First of all, I am amazed at all this talk about 'taking your guns away.' This is called NRA crap, propaganda and unworthy of anyone with any intelligence to be spouting. No one has proposed that agents go door to door and collect all your weapons. Show me where any such law has been even hinted at much less proposed. We are talking about going back to the previous law that banned assault weapons and about banning clips with crazy amount of bullets. This is all old news. And for those who keep saying Hitler collected all the guns and the people were thus unarmed, read your history. He did no such thing and it is not being proposed now. But perhaps we should consider stopping the proliferation of all these weapons by limiting the number that can be made. Then even criminals would not have what is not there. Remember also, the NRA is a lobby group for the corporate gun manufacturers, not for you!

Thank you Don. It was a great letter coming from someone who has been there not a bunch of couch potatoes and Wyatt Earp wannabes. LIsten to the people who put there lives on the line everyday. You might be surprised how many law enforcement officers around the nation side with Don.

Well, duh, the lamestream media is covering it up. One day, Hillary, the UN, and Obama's secret army will come to your door and take your guns. They already know exactly where they are thanks to those secret drones that have been flying over your house.

I think you might want to turn your tv to another channel. Did you really not listen to what was said? I will agree that we all have to be watchful but for some I think it is more where the deep end begins than anything else. A little more discussion without all this hype from certain entertainment media types might be warrented.

The question was asked recently at my National Guard meeting what if the government told us to go door to door and remove weapons from homes would we. I think you can probably figure out the answer on your own.

It's called sarcasm. Look it up. There are people (many on this board) who believe Obama is going to rescind the 2nd Amendment, followed by the entire Constitution and make himself dictator for life. They also believe Obama has a secret army he's been building since 2008 (BEFORE he was elected) and he will allow Hillary Clinton to bring in the UN to confiscate everybody's guns. There's also a person here who believes Obama has drones capable of seeing inside your house that can not only see WHERE your guns are, but exactly the make and model.

Reading fsioab and the gun debate I am reminded of boiling crabs. When someone wants to take something from you they do it a little at a time so as not to alarm you. Like boiling crabs, you start off with cold water and gradually heat up the water, by the time they realize whats going on, its too late, they are cooked. Same thing happened in England, they said " these are only commonsense reasonable suggestions, you can't really believe we would take your guns, it's for the good of the people old chap". Fifity years later all the guns were gone. I don't care what the Germans did or the Brits, this is the USA and we have that GOD GIVEN RIGHT, as our founders said, man cannot give you rights, only God can.

Not really wanting to get off point, but my history taught me that the Bill of Rights was in the Constitution and not the Bible. I must have missed that Sunday School class. Also, God is not mentioned in the Consitution nor the Declaration of Independence, the two primary founding documents of our Republic.

It was frogs I meant, my mistake. But if you look at the Declaration of Independence, and letters written by our founders it says endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. You nuts keeping up so far? They also said that man cannot give you rights you already were blessed with by your Creator. Now I'm just a simple man trying to make a point and to me Creator is , God, Yahweh, Allah, Supreme being or whatever you want to call it. Engage me with debate but if you want to play Saul Alinsky do it with someone else yulb a dub dub

It was frogs I meant, my mistake. But if you look at the Declaration of Independence, and letters written by our founders it says endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. You nuts keeping up so far? They also said that man cannot give you rights you already were blessed with by your Creator. Now I'm just a simple man trying to make a point and to me Creator is , God, Yahweh, Allah, Supreme being or whatever you want to call it. Engage me with debate but if you want to play Saul Alinsky do it with someone else yulb a dub dub

Creator is mentioned but without the context in which it was used by backisland. The only mention of god is 'nature and of nature's god.' The reason for that is that by far the vast majority of these founding fathers would not be so easily called Christians by today's standards and in fact some were athiest and the rest varying degrees of deist and humanists, but truth be know the largest portion were probably agnostic. Remember this was in response to backisland. Now, yes, we nuts are keeping up and I would love to meet Saul Alinsky, just so you know. But here we are discussing the 2nd amendment as it is being used in the here and now. I am sure you know, since you seem to be quite intelligent, that the current rendering of wordage was not the first but altered to placate a certain bunch of rich white men from the South. If they had not there would be no Constitution so they comprimised. Now sometimes compromise is a good thing and sometimes not. Thus the original intent of the amentment was subverted through coersion. It was written in order to preserve slavery. I had learned this in a very interesting class I had taken on Southern Strategy from the Colonial Times to Present. But, I also ran across this from a very good and trustworthy fb page and here is the link:

So, just to your last point about you care not what you call this 'creator' which is a good and descent thing of you. But then what of those who worship no creator in any form? Are they then 'rightless' since the Constitution can not grant rights, only god can, this according to backisland?

I would like to see any quote from any of those founding fathers present during the process of ratification of the Constitution who made any such statement since one of the important reasons they were there was to actually decide what rights would be granted!

Its better to be silent and let some people think you are crazy than to open your mouth and remove all doubt. I have never seen a clip that holds a crazy amount of bullets. KNOW what you are talking about before talking. The people you rejecting as wanna-bees, couch pot. and such are in the most part are experanced people who have been there and know what they are talking about. You prase a retired cop who obv. never stopped anything from happening. By the very nature of a cop's job, they are almost always going to arrive long after the fact. As far as the control laws that the blue koolaid drinkers want to pass, their nothing new, some still on the books, and never worked from the start and won't now. As for the storm troopers knocking on door to disarm us, there are not enough of them, and if they try, there will be a whole lot less. Making less guns will never work because the nuts and bad guys will still find ways to get them.
YES, most of us are intellegent enoughj to know for a fact that our government is out of control, and will try to make an end run if they can disarm us.
You try to indicate that all law enforcement supports the blue koolaid gang. Not True.

First of all, the New Orleans police illegally confiscated guns from law abiding citizens in the wake of Katrina. They used the disaster as justification to go into homes, remove legally owned weapons and left those citizens defenseless. It took months and a judge's order to have those weapons returned. So any of you who believe it couldn't happen had better research history.

That being said, natural law,( "rules of conduct supposedly inherent in the relations between human beings and discoverable by reason; law based upon man's innate moral sense"- Websters)
gives me the right to self defense. It need not be granted by God, the Constitution or a politician. The Constitution does guarantee that my right to bear arms shall not be infringed. I choose to use weapons to defend myself, and I choose to use the same type of weapons that law enforcement have determined are essential to confront criminals, I do so with the belief that natural law gives me the right. You're free to disagree with what I believe, but don't try to tell me what I need or don't need. You're just wasting your time. It's called freedom. I paid for it and I will enjoy it as long as I bleed red, white and blue.

The President uses the idiotic argument that "if just one person is saved by...". Does he not realize that he could save 7000-8000 lives per mile per gallon increase in the CAFE standards per year by NOT mandating increased standards for fuel efficiency? He is sentencing thousands more Americans per year to death by pushing his green agenda. Where is the outrage?

Has long been far lower than southern cities like Atlanta, Jacksonville, etc. No James, I for one do not expect that it is going to rise because of new gun control measures taken by the State of New York. They've had stricter gun control there for years than we do in Georgia, yet their crime rate is lower. That ain't gonna change.

I may not be as intelligent as you seem to be but at least I am intellectually honest. You know nothing about me but make these assumptions? So let me tell you a few things so you will know that I have earned the right to speak. I am a combat veteran so I know a little something, perhaps not as much as you, about weapons, and that includes clips by the way. I was also a military police officer so I know a little about the role, responsibility and hazards of police work, but then perhaps you are far more experienced in these matters than am I. As far as the couch potatoes, the Wyatt Earp wannabes, the 'bubbas', I too know a lot about them because you see, I am from Savannah, was raised in a very southern conservative pro-war, pro-gun at any price household. So, I have earned the right to say something about that as well. Do you know Don personally? How dare you put down a man that worked long and hard, honestly and fairly in this community to keep it safe by innuendo and using your powers to know all. How can you say he obvioiusly, your word, never stopped anything from happening. I may not be as intelligent as you think you are but I would never make that assumption. There is only one thing upon which we agree and that is that our government is out of control. Anyone who thinks otherwise is drinking something other than kool-aid.

First, I would like to commend Don for an excellent letter. As a citizen, it is gratifying to know that there are well trained police officers on duty who are ready and willing to put their lives on the line every day to serve and protect ordinary people like me.

With all due respect to you, Roy, you may well be a good person, but you have not taken an oath to protect people like me. I have no expectation that if I were in trouble, you would be willing to drop everything and come to my aid at a moment's notice or that you would be willing to put your life on the line for anybody other than yourself or those who are close to you.

Our community police force performs a special service, therefore in my opinion they deserve to have an advantage over a dangerous lawbreaker who currently has easy access to every assault style weapon on the market thanks to inadequate background checks and disreputable gun dealers who are literally dumping these weapons on our streets.

The sad thing is that because of powerful gun lobbies like the NRA, people are being duped into thinking they are safer being armed to the teeth, forgetting that more assault style weapons in the hands of law abiding citizens means more assault style weapons in the hands of criminals all of which makes the job of the police that much harder and more dangerous by the day.

well at least we agree on one thing. I also read the post by Don's wife and might be wrong about him, but I doubt it. As for as being an MP, I have had some experance with them during my military career, and I have to agree with you that from what I saw you prob. do know a little about police work. We had MPs assigned to us that were school trained and also worked hand in hand with the Provost Marshel and CID. In most cases we were not inpressed. with the patrol level units, and the upper levels were after the fact and in a lot of way mainly out to CTA. Example of CTA is what is now comming out about the CCMPD. But like you said, we agree that our GOV. is running wild. However nothing you said leads me to agree that you or anyone else has the right or power to prevent me from protecting myself and my friends and family, and inorder to do that I must have the firepower to do so. I can't depend on you and the ones like you to do the job because history has proven that you will be a day late and a dollar short, but if a law abiding citizen is near that you could poss. get the aid you need. IF you remember the oath we took when we entered the service, than you know it goes much futher than any police oath, and esp. for most of us that stayed for the long haul we still honor it. If our gov. decides to disarm or lower our cap. to honor that oath, than it has voided that commitment. Just think about how many millions of american citizens who are going to become law breakers if this leftsest gov. and blue kool aid drinkers knee jerk reactions happen. People need to stop, engage their minds, and come up with solutions instead of the smoke screen that is presently being thrown at the problem.

...are modest, and don't disarm anyone. All the gnashing of teeth is rather preposterous. AR-15's and 30 round mags aren't necessary equipment and have no sacred right to protection under the 2nd amendment any more than do grenade launchers or machine guns.

In addition, it makes a lot of sense that any gun sale anywhere should require a thorough background check. The databases should be upgraded and the requirements for full and truthful information enforced. These are not radical ideas by any means. I don't take the objections to their implementation seriously because I have yet to see a compelling argument against them.

of our founders beliefs? Here are a few: 1."I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man" Thomas Jefferson*,

2.Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that his justice cannot sleep forever…

.3.the propitious smiles of Heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right which Heaven itself has ordained..." George Washington, First Inaugural, April 30 1789

4."Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." John Adams

5."Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God." Thomas Jefferson

6."Can the liberties of a nation be sure when we remove their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people, that these liberties are a gift from God? Thomas Jefferson

there are your deity references, now some about rights to arm

7."Any people that would give up liberty for a little temporary safety deserves neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

8. The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government."

Patrick Henry

9.Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Thomas Jefferson

JAMES MADISON

10."Americans [have] the right and advantage of being armed, unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust their people with arms."

SAMUEL ADAMS

11."The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms . . ."

No one is disagreeing with your second para.
But, your first para. is just plain silly. The only thing most of us opose is the knee jerk smoke screen reactions that are being thrown at the violance problem. We don't want boozokas, tommy guns and granade launchers out and around anymore than you do. What we do want is for you to be educaated as to what an assult weapon is and to stop trying to disalow us law abiding citizens the ability to the type of weapon that is readly aval to the bad guys. This includes high cap. mags. If they out gun us than they will win every time. An AR15 is not an assult rifle, it just looks like one. If you declare it as an assult weapon just because it looks like the military rifle, than you are also saying that the toy guns that click, the BB guns and air-sof guns that look like the M16 or M4 are also assult weapons. Learn what you are talkinfg about and stop the knee jerk, smoke scree, lip service that you control freeks are doing.
Anything that prevents a law-abiding citizen from being able to defend self, country, property adiquately is disarming us. Anything you do that causes us to be out gunned by the bad guys is disarming us.

Minister writes "AR-15's and 30 round mags aren't necessary equipment and have no sacred right to protection under the 2nd amendment . . ." Thanks for your OPINION.

Now here are the facts. Practically every law enforcement agency in America includes the AR-15 and high capacity magazines in their arsenal because they do view them as necessary equipment when confronting violent criminals.

The Second Amendment states "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Now I'm no Constitutional Law professor, but I do understand the phrase "shall not be infringed." I also know there are some exceptions, as when a convicted felon loses some of his rights (vote, possess weapons, submit to drug tests, etc).

I choose to defend my family with tools I feel are necessary, and that is my OPINION. Denying me that right infringes on my Constitutionally guaranteed rights.

But I tell you what Minister, when the President orders federal law enforcement to stop using AR-15s, which he can do without Congressional approval, then he might have a leg to stand on. Obama said these weapons of war are only intended for killing as many people as possible as quickly as possible. Does this then imply all AR-15 owners/users are wanna-be mass murderers?

We as law abiding citizens are asked, even forced, to trust the government, yet the government and gun control advocates refuse to trust us. Banning the AR-15 and high capacity magazines is akin to mass punishment of all law abiding citizens, but it still won't stop criminals from killing.

Somewhere along the line you people decided one incident of 26 deaths warrants banning the weapon of choice, but cannot figure out how to prevent 513 deaths in a city where guns are already banned. You cannot solve the problem, so an ineffective solution is your answer? Do you see how asinine that is? Why not ban alcohol again and save us from DUI deaths? Ban tobacco and prevent associated cancer! Ban abortion and save thousands of children!

Sandy Hook was a tragedy and has made many feel helpless against violent crime. Unfortunately there are no solutions that will prevent murder. Banning the tools and options of law abiding citizens and law enforcement certainly won't help, despite the warm, fuzzy feeling it gives you.

I can tell you that you are very wrong about Don and should not be so quick to say what is obvious. His letter that gave no basis to make that judgement. I am fortunate to know Don. He is also a veteran and we were in combat at the same time although we did not know each other. I feel you owe him an apology, he and his wife. They are honorable people struggling to survive but also struggling to make a difference in this world which is not easily said of many because many of us are just struggling to survive.

Other than that I can say that I wholeheartedly support the statements by LFrazier and Minister of Silly Walks: '...it makes a lot of sense that any gun sale anywhere should require a thorough background check. The databases should be upgraded and the requirements for full and truthful information enforced. These are not radical ideas by any means. I don't take the objections to their implementation seriously because I have yet to see a compelling argument against them.' And also: '...The sad thing is that because of powerful gun lobbies like the NRA, people are being duped into thinking they are safer being armed to the teeth, forgetting that more assault style weapons in the hands of law abiding citizens means more assault style weapons in the hands of criminals all of which makes the job of the police that much harder and more dangerous by the day.'

Contrary to the rampant fear running amuk, no one has even hinted that guns should be taken from the people, no special forces going door to door to collect all weapons, no sane person is saying that the ability to protect yourself or your family should be denied or infringed. But in light of decades of gun violence something clearly has to be done. It is a conversation that reguires calmness and civility and that apparently is not possible with many who believe everyone is out to get them and their little weapons too!

Fsioab speaks as if his stataments are facts, but I would argue they are more assumptions. " . . . more assault style weapons in the hands of law abiding citizens means more assault style weapons in the hands of criminals . . ." Are you implying we are all criminals? Or are you implying that every time an AR is sold legally, an AR is obtained illegally? Obviously there is no way you could prove either statement, so that must be an assumption.

"Contrary to the rampant fear running amuk, no one has even hinted that guns should be taken from the people." Didn't New Orleans police confiscate legally owned guns from citizens after Katrina? I think I heard something about that.

Despite your accusation that I've been duped by the NRA, (you don't know me!) I know for a fact that being armed to the teeth has made me safer. The last time the local drug dealer approached me and threatened to kill me, the first thing he asked was if I was armed. He found out I was not a sheep to be slaughtered and kept his distance after that.

We are all entitled to our opinion, fsioab. Some of your statements are just that, while others are either assumptions or are flat out wrong. Just because you say it doesn't mean we will be duped into believing it.

Wanted instances where our founders invoked the name of God, I provided them and also quotes about giving citizens the right to bear arms, and they were ignored. Which tells me he would rather disparage others comments and not recognize when they were right.

Backisland, that's how some people push their agenda. They make statements as if they're facts, ignore the truth and dismisses others, implying we are ignorant dolts who cannot think for ourselves. If the prophet Obama says so, then it is gospel and he demonizes opposing opinions, "There will be pundits and politicians and special interest lobbyists publicly warning of a tyrannical, all-out assault on liberty -- not because that’s true, but because they want to gin up fear or higher ratings or revenue for themselves."

I guess now he will have to eat a little crow and carve out an exemption because facing criminals really does take more than 7 bullets. Too bad he doesn't care as much about his citizens as his own butt.

You are so right in your assessment of progressives. My biggest problem is having them TELL ME, what is best for me because they are smarter and wiser, and that I am too stupid or violent to make my own decisions. I don't hunt because I am not into killing, but I reserve the right to defend myself. Not sure if it was you, but someone on here said the police could be there in minutes, but unfortunately is seconds that count.

It's a common phrase that I cannot take credit for. I have experienced it, however.

I think one of the problems we have in opening the eyes of some gun control advocates is that they, through no fault of their own, cannot see firsthand the challenges of living in rural areas where law enforcement is simply spread too thin to respond quickly when trouble arises. On one such occasion, it took the police 45 minutes to respond to a "shots fired" 911 call. Just look at the GA mother who had to shoot an intruder to save her children. The police, bless their hearts, would never have arrived in time to stop the intruder.

I've never tried to tell a city dweller how many locks to put on their door or what alarm system is best. I don't think it is too much to ask for the same courtesy when I choose what I feel is necessary to protect my family. If there was one lesson to be learned from the 9/11 attacks, above all else, is that being passive can get you killed as easily as fighting back. At least those brave souls on United Flight 93 saved some lives.

It seems to me that violent criminals have no respect for the sanctity of life anymore. "It's easier to rob a corpse and leaves no witnesses." One of my favorite quotes comes from Clint Eastwood's "Unforgiven". In the scene a one-armed deputy with three pistols responds to his buddy that he isn't going to die for lack of shooting back. Too many people chose not to fight back, and many of them are dead. The GA mother and her children are alive though because some politicians didn't take her gun, yet.